- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:37:22 -0700
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: liam@w3.org, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, koba <koba@antenna.co.jp>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, www-style@w3.org, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
On 10/10/2012 06:45 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > >> I raised this particular issue years ago, but nobody >> came up with a sensible alternative until this year. :/ > > Are you saying that with start, head, end, foot, it's more clear, without memorizing it beforehand, which set belongs to which > axis? I think linking 'head' to the concept of "header" and 'foot' to the concept of "footer" makes it more clear. E.g. <thead> is always on the block-before side of the table. Then start/end has to be along the other axis. > If we only think about horizontal, it might be, but in this case, it's crucial that this also works with vertical. And > if I think e.g. about some Japanese vertical text (where the first line is at the right), then it's quite easy to guess that > head means top, and foot means bottom, and therefore start has to be right and end has to be left. But that guess would be all > wrong. Fair enough. > So rather than using something that lets some people guess things correctly some time, but leads people totally astray in > other cases, I'd prefer words that, while they may have the problem of not inducing the right connotations, also don't induce > wrong connotations. ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 20:37:55 UTC